024-SLLR-SLLR-1998-1-PRIYANGANI-NAVARATNE-AND-OTHERS-v.-CHANDRASENA.pdf
170
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(1998) 1 Sri LR.
PRIYANGANI NAVARATNE AND OTHERS
v.CHANDRASENA
SUPREME COURTFERNANDO, J.,
AMERASINGHE, J. ANDGUNASEKERA, J.
S.C. APPLICATIONS 172-179/97DECEMBER 4TH, 1997.
Fundamental rights – Ragging – Punishment of offenders violative of Article12 (1) of the Constitution – Adequacy of punishment – Discretion of Court torefuse relief to offending petitioners.
Petitioners were teacher trainees at the Nilwala Educational College. They werefound guilty of ragging freshers which required the victims to be admitted to hospitalfor treatment. The petitioners were given an opportunity of showing cause againstthat finding after which the finding was affirmed and their internships were suspended;for one month in the case of females, and for two months in the case ofmales. The petitioners resumed internship after the period of suspension. Next,there was a further inquiry after which the male petitioners were informed thatthey had been expelled from the college, and the female petitioners were informedthat their internship had been extended for a further period of one year.
Held:
The petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 12 (1) were infringed by reasonof the second punishment for the same offence and the antecedent procedure.However, their conduct amounted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of thevictims; the original punishments were therefore, lenient and wholly inadequate.Therefore, in the exercise of the courts discretion apart from a bare declaration,no relief should be granted, for restoring the original punishments.
Per Fernando, J.
'Ragging is sometimes sought to be justified as being a necessary partof orientation to life in Universities and other Institutions of higher learning.Such ragging may be tolerated, if at all, if it is dean fen; but it is totallyunacceptable if it causes pain or suffering, or physical, mental or emotionaldistress, to the victims.*
SC Priyangani Navaratne and Others v. Chandrasena (Fernando, J.)171
APPUCATION for relief for Infringement of fundamental rights.
Chula Bandara for the petitioners.
S. Fernando, SC for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 16, 1997.
FERNANDO, J.
These eight applications were heard together. All eight petitioners wereadmitted to the Nilwala Educational College on 28.3.94 (for a three-year course 1994/97) for the purpose of being trained as teachers.The petitioners in the first three applications are females, while theother five are males.
On 9.10.95 a new batch of trainees was admitted for the nextcourse, 1995/98. According to the petitioners:
"On the afternoon of 9.10.95 which was a Saturday, all traineesincluding seniors and juniors were playing at the Collegeplay ground. While at play, ‘ the senior trainees separated thenewcomers into groups according to their sex. Thereafter theseniors made them to march along the grounds. After some time,the female trainees were allowed to rest while the male traineeswere asked to do certain physical exercises while the seniorslooked on. This group of male students were made to roll overand back several times by the senior students. While this washappening, a few freshers complained of dizziness and pain dueto exhaustion. These trainees who complained were then takento the Akuressa Government Hospital in the College bus and werewarded for treatment. All these trainees were discharged fromhospital the following day".
It is clear that this was a collective effort, in which all theseniors were involved, and the petitioners did not suggest that theirinvolvement was in any way less than that of the other seniors.
On 30.11.95 each petitioner received a letter from the 1strespondent, the President of the College, stating that the DisciplinaryCommittee of the College had found her/him guilty of ragging thenewcomers, and giving her/him an opportunity to show cause in regardto that finding. The petitioners submitted explanations denying any
172
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(1998) 1 Sri LR.
involvement in the ragging of the newcomers. That denial is contraryto their affidavits filed in this Court.
The petitioners were due to serve one-year internships commencing1.1.96. By letters dated 21.12.95, the 1st respondent informed thepetitioners that they had been found guilty of ragging, and that theirinternships were suspended: for one month in the case of the females,and for two months in the case of the males. They submitted appealsagainst the punishments, and commenced their internships after theperiod of suspension.
By a Circular dated 7.10.96 the 2nd respondent, the Secretaryto the Ministry of Higher Education, amended the Disciplinary Codeof the College, to make specific mention of ragging, and to give the2nd respondent powers and responsibilities in regard to offences ofragging.
In the meantime, there seems to have been a further inquiry, afterwhich, by letters dated 8.1.97 the male petitioners were informed thatthey had been expelled from the College, and by letters dated 13.1.97the female petitioners were informed that their internship had beenextended for a further one year, for breach of the terms and conditionsof the agreement they had signed when they joined the College.
The petitioners filed these applications on 12.2.97 alleging theviolation of their fundamental rights under Article 12 (1), on the groundthat the punishment imposed in January 1997 was a secondpunishment for the same offence; that it was arbitrary; that the audialteram partem rule had not been observed before imposing thatpunishment; and that the amendment of the Disciplinary Code wasretrospectively applied to them, although it contained no expressprovision making it retrospective.
When applying for leave to proceed, Counsel for the petitionerssaid that they did not dispute the first punishment imposed in respectof offence of ragging, and that their case was confined to the secondpunishment and the retrospective application of the amendment.
At the hearing learned State Counsel, quite properly submitted thathe did not object to the grant of a declaration that the petitioners'fundamental rights under Article 12 (1) had been infringed by reason
SC Priyangani Navaratne and Others v. Chandrasena (Fernando, J.)173
of the imposition of the second punishment, and the antecedentprocedure; he strenuously submitted, however, that in the exerciseof our equitable discretion under Article 126 (4) we should not grantany other relief to the petitioners.
Mr. Bandara on behalf of the petitioners urged that they had beenpunished once, and that the second punishment, imposed contraryto law, should not be permitted to stand, or should at least be reducedbecause, he said, expulsion was a punishment wholly disproportionateto their Offence: they were just out of school, and starting life, andhad not realised the seriousness of what they were doing.
We agree that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article12 (1) have been infringed and grant them a declaration to that effect.However, not only do they admit the offence of ragging, but it is quiteclear that what they say they did on 9.10.95 constituted severe ragging.On the basis of their own statements and admissions, it is whollyinequitable to grant them any relief.
The petitioners' misconduct is extremely serious. It is not just amatter between one individual and another. All the seniors wereinvolved, and the petitioners did not claim that they were only passiveobservers. Ragging is sometimes sought to be justified as being anecessary part of orientation to life in Universities and other Institutionsof higher learning. Such ragging may be tolerated, if at all, if it isclean fun; but it is totally unacceptable if it causes pain or suffering,or physical, mental or emotional distress, to the victims. No normalperson could possibly have considered what happened in this caseto be fun: on the contrary, it was cruel, inhuman and degrading toill-treat or torment persons to the point of pain and exhaustion requiringhospitalization, not to mention the possible long-term adverse mentaleffects, even on the victims who did not need hospitalization. Shouldnot this Court refrain from granting relief to petitioners who are plainlyguilty of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of their juniorcolleagues? I
I must also note that this was not an instance of ragging by ahandful of seniors. All the seniors got together to bully the newcomers;the ragging took place in the College premises openly, and for sometime, and the fact that persons in authority did not intervene indicatesthat what took place was a form of terrorism.
174
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(1998) 1 Sri LR.
In exercising our discretion, we cannot ignore the purpose of theCollege: to train teachers to be entrusted with the care and educationof the young. Learned State Counsel submitted, with much justification,that persons guilty of such misconduct are not fit to be entrusted withthe powers and responsibilities of teachers.
Yet another relevant matter is that ragging is easily done, butdifficult to prove; victims are afraid to complain, because reprisals arelikely; those in authority often fear to get involved, whether by inter-vening, reporting, or otherwise. The disciplinary authorities are some-times intimidated into mitigating or even cancelling punishments. Inthese circumstances, the public interest demands deterrent, rather thanlenient, punishment for admitted or proven misconduct, and in my viewthe punishments first imposed were wholly inadequate for what thepetitioners did. To restore those punishments would be to condonethe violation of the rights of the newcomers.
Finally, Mr. Bandara urged in mitigation that the petitioners wereyoung. But their victims were even younger, and needed help inadjusting to the complexities of life in a new environment; they wereentitled to treatment that would bring smiles to their anxious faces,and not tears to their eyes or distress to their minds. I
I therefore consider that, apart from a bare declaration, no reliefshould be granted to the petitioners.
AMERASINGHE, J. – . agree.
GUNASEKERA, J. – I agree.
Declaration granted.